Some say one thing, and some say something completely different

[Many Miles]

10 minutes ago, George88 said:

The question can be posed in multiple ways but ultimately leads to the same outcome. Paul wasn't only talking about himself; he was also referring to those who are ready to manipulate scripture for their own benefit. This aligns with the stance that the GB take when it comes to biblical subjects. If you carefully analyze the majority of the Watchtower articles, you'll find that this implication is apparent. They are just as resolute as Paul was in their commitment.

Do you agree or disagree that Paul's statement to Galatia had the effect of telling Christians it was possible that Paul, or the apostles, should be accursed for what they might teach?

If you agree, then do you know of any instance of the society ever stating that it's possible that we should hold it as accursed for what it might teach?

[Many Miles]

12 minutes ago, George88 said:

Exactly. If Paul was in the wrong and deserving of condemnation, and if the GB is also wrong and deserving of condemnation, then it is only fair to also condemn those who manipulate or distort scripture. However, the crucial question we should be asking is: who has the authority to pass judgment on Paul and the GB in the first place?

In Galatians 1:8, Paul's message to the Galatians carries a significant meaning that is well expressed in this statement. This verse reads, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." Here, Paul is emphasizing the importance of gospel authenticity and imparting a warning against false teachings or distorted versions of the gospel. 

The statement captures Paul's strong conviction that any deviation from the true gospel, regardless of the source, should be unequivocally rejected and condemned. The Galatians were being influenced by false teachers who were attempting to impose legalistic requirements on them, questioning the sufficiency of faith in Christ alone for salvation. Paul adamantly opposes these teachings and seeks to reinforce the purity of the gospel message he initially proclaimed to the Galatians. 

By asserting that even if he or anyone else, including celestial beings, were to contradict the true gospel, they should be considered accursed, Paul leaves no room for compromise. This powerful statement underscores the urgency of sticking to the authentic gospel, shedding light on the importance of preserving its integrity and safeguarding the Galatians' faith. In conclusion, this statement effectively captures the essence of Paul's message in Galatians 1:8, conveying his unwavering stance on the need to defend and uphold the true gospel while utterly rejecting any form of deviation or distortion.

Who, then, is the "false teacher"? Is it Paul, the Governing Body, or those who interpret scripture for personal gain, much like the Pharisees?

We may be talking about different things.

My question relates to obedience of teachers taking the lead. Paul was a teacher taking the lead. The apostles were teachers taking the lead. In their time there were other teachers taking the lead. What Paul wrote could be applied to any and all teachers taking the lead, or any teacher at all for that matter. There is also biblical admonition to obey those taking the lead among us. But Paul pointed out a point at which teachers taking the lead should not be obeyed but, rather, rejected as accursed. Paul said this was okay, and he included himself. I don't find any instance where the society has ever given this instruction of itself, as though it were even possibly right to reject what they say when they say it.

[Srecko Sostar]

20 minutes ago, George88 said:

Who, then, is the "false teacher"? Is it Paul, the Governing Body, or those who interpret scripture for personal gain, much like the Pharisees?

I think I know how GB would respond to question about Gal 1:8.
The same way they interpreted Mat 24:45-51. There is only a faithful and wise servant and he gets everything. There is no evil servant because FDS aka GB can never be evil in any way.

So it's a complete joke. A complete disparagement of all readers of these words of Jesus. Another in a series of anomalies of a mind that is proud and does not admit its own defeat.

[Pudgy]

I think George88 and Many Miles above said it all.

I wish it had been in bold print so I could read it easier, but that about covers it.

Their combined posts also covers the “universal smell test” of having good common sense.

 

[Many Miles]

24 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I think I know how GB would respond to question about Gal 1:8.
The same way they interpreted Mat 24:45-51. There is only a faithful and wise servant and he gets everything. There is no evil servant because FDS aka GB can never be evil in any way.

So it's a complete joke. A complete disparagement of all readers of these words of Jesus. Another in a series of anomalies of a mind that is proud and does not admit its own defeat.

The closest thing I can find to the society saying its okay to reject something it says is the article “Is Obedience Always Proper?”  in the The Watchtower of April 1, 1988. After citing what Paul wrote to Galatia, we find this paragraph:

“Is the information before us different from what we have been taught through “the faithful and discreet slave”? Is the person spreading that message speaking to honor the name of Jehovah, or is he trying to exalt himself? Is the information in harmony with the overall teachings of the Bible? These are questions that will help us in ‘testing’ anything that may sound questionable. We are admonished to “make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.””

It’s the third question presented that is somewhat of an acknowledgement that it’s okay to reject something the society puts out, but the first question presses what Geoffrey Jackson alluded to under sworn testimony, that the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision-maker about interpreting what they Bible says. Hence the average one of us is led back to what the society says to determine what the overall teachings of the Bible are, which tends to negate the third question. This is unlike what Paul did. Paul just put it out there in so many words. He said, “even if we…” and then got right to it.

And, as for being “different from what we have been taught through ‘the faithful and discreet slave’”, that’s going on all the time! Am I to decide what I’m supposed to believe based on what is taught today, yesterday, or tomorrow? At some point there has to be a clear litmus test offered and respected.

[Pudgy]

How about as a litmus test all commentary has to use standard definitions of words, and terms? And completely eliminate the word “evidently” when there is zero evidence?

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

How about as a litmus test all commentary has to use standard definitions of words, and terms? And completely eliminate the word “evidently” when there is zero evidence?

Oh, “evidently”. That is such a terribly misused term. In presentation it’s a term used for persuasion; definitely should never be used as underpinning for a premise in a logical argument. Maybe to nudge thought on a theory. But it’s such a mercurial term. As persuasion the usage immediately conjures thoughts of a snake oil salesman. 

[Srecko Sostar]

10 hours ago, Many Miles said:

The closest thing I can find to the society saying its okay to reject something it says is the article “Is Obedience Always Proper?”  in the The Watchtower of April 1, 1988. After citing what Paul wrote to Galatia, we find this paragraph:

 

“Is the information before us different from what we have been taught through “the faithful and discreet slave”? Is the person spreading that message speaking to honor the name of Jehovah, or is he trying to exalt himself? Is the information in harmony with the overall teachings of the Bible? These are questions that will help us in ‘testing’ anything that may sound questionable. We are admonished to “make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.””

 

It’s the third question presented that is somewhat of an acknowledgement that it’s okay to reject something the society puts out, but the first question presses what Geoffrey Jackson alluded to under sworn testimony, that the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision-maker about interpreting what they Bible says. Hence the average one of us is led back to what the society says to determine what the overall teachings of the Bible are, which tends to negate the third question. This is unlike what Paul did. Paul just put it out there in so many words. He said, “even if we…” and then got right to it.

 

And, as for being “different from what we have been taught through ‘the faithful and discreet slave’”, that’s going on all the time! Am I to decide what I’m supposed to believe based on what is taught today, yesterday, or tomorrow? At some point there has to be a clear litmus test offered and respected.

 

Now I will use the same type of argument JWs use against those who oppose their organization: "What is their motive?"
This kind of question is asked/pointed out when the question does not suit us, and we turn the blade by calling a question as if it is an "attack"?

So what is the motive for WTJWorg to write an article like this? To appear objective and well-intentioned because they want to warn readers of the possible danger of being deceived. Seems like a good motive, right? But the warning does not apply to "spiritual food" that comes from GB, because this "food" means that all the information on the Society's library (today website) has been checked and is correct. They actually say; "stick to what we authorized," as A. Morris III once said on JWTV.

Any other information, especially that which concerns the "International Brotherhood and Organization", if comes from "this evil world" is dangerous to be taken for granted. 

When WTJWorg participated in the court process in Russia, it was written about and called for mass political activism of the membership colored with religious cloak of freedom of belief. When it was debated in 2015 before the ARC, Australia and the horrors that hundreds of children experienced in the religion of "their parents", in WTJWorg, not a single sentence appeared about it. Total control of information whose sole intent and purpose is to cover up the real situation at WTJWorg. So, even when leading JW people speak in court about their "theocratic practices" which are right in their eyes because they were taught so by the Organization, it was not "allowed" to be seen on JWTV, not even as a brief information. To transmit the entire statements of the elders would be "too dangerous" for the faith of believers.

The article in the mentioned issue of the magazine focuses on the refusal to do something at the request of "unbelievers". Only a weak indication that this could also refer to internal circumstances in the assembly in extraordinary circumstances, probably as the beginning of some kind of initial "apostasy" in the brotherhood. It's the eighties, after all. Not too much time has passed since the "great disappointment" of 1975. But a lot was written against "Babylon".

[Pudgy]

…

[Pudgy]

….

[Juan Rivera]

On 10/26/2023 at 5:20 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Given that Geoffrey Jackson, authorized GB representative, has publicly stated, confirmed by the court seal of the ARC, that the WTJWorg GB is not the only body in this world that can give valid doctrines when representing God as God's speaker of faith, (opposite to your view about GB) then this exposition about different interpretations from different sources is redundant, in the sense that it does not lead us to any single human authority on this issue.

Perhaps the difficulty arises from the fact that all the religious sources discussed are in a phase, a state called "spirit-led." GB is in such mental state. Perhaps other churces have different view and think they are inspired or something else. Should find out. It is obvious from everything presented that being "led by the spirit" is a very weak, flawed, uncertain and imprecise way of establishing true faith in God (without written Bible text).

@Srecko Sostar I've read a few comments from other Witnesses and it seems you already had this conversation elsewhere and in the closed club. I don't think your perspective that Geoffrey Jackson was claiming that they are not the only body in this world that can give valid doctrine when representing God as God's speaker of faith is accurate. Here's their comments:

Comment from JW "Rotherham":

"The literature never states that the FDS is the SOLE channel for dispensing truth, it says God’s organization IS. God’s organization includes everyone who would be considered a minister, man, woman or child. But the scriptures are clear that SOMEONE would be taking the LEAD when it comes to feeding the flock. That is what we believe to be the case with the FDS. So whereas MANY can feed and nourish, there are those who are leaders that Hebrews 13:17 says we should OBEY and SUBMIT to. So I don’t see where Br. Jackson’s comments are inaccurate."

 

Another comment from @JW Insider:

"Angus Stewart asked the wrong question of Bro Jackson. It seemed obvious that he had been prepped to ask "do you see yourself as modern-day apostles, the modern-day equivalent of Jesus' apostles. (The next question about the mouthpiece was meant to draw out the same issue.)

If he had asked the question correctly, there is no telling whether Jackson would have answered differently, even though he knew the reason for the question. Fortunately, Jackson was able to easily skirt the intent of the question and he quickly took advantage of it. However, the GB do see themselves as the modern day near-equivalent of Jesus' apostles. They see the Jerusalem GB as as the first-century equivalent of the on-going teaching role of those apostles, even if the group could have non-apostles participate. The GB have also seen themselves in a modern-day role like the Bible writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, a group which also could have non-apostles participate."

[Juan Rivera]

On 10/26/2023 at 2:17 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

I found one article to educate me more on about this. https://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/historical-theology/tax-collectors/

 

I don't really understand why Jesus would use a tax collector in his teaching about internal relationships among fellow believers.
The tax collector was a legally appointed person from the Roman authorities. Nobody likes taxes and tax collectors, both before and today. I will use the cynicism of GB who said that "Jesus did not promise perfect spiritual food". Jesus also did not promise that you will not be taxed by the authorities. He did not promise that taxes would be low. He did not promise that injustice would not overtake you. And so on and so forth. Finally, JWs boast of being completely law-abiding and paying (unjust) taxes, both in the 1st century and today.
Furthermore, everyone will agree with what @Juan Rivera said about ex-JW status. Ex-JWs fall into the category of "neighbors" just like tax collectors and Gentiles.

In the light of the comments that are presented here and emphasize the need for less influence of the written word, the Bible, and a stronger influence of the interpretation of the written word by those who are "authorized and appointed" to interpret it, then the existing interpretation of completely ignoring excluded JWs would need reinterpretation.
Among other things, JWs go to prisons to convert people who have been marked as criminals by a "higher authority", who they say is appointed by God to their position. The same elders who are cordial with the prisoners despise the ex-JW when they see him on the street. That's a normal state of mind and emotion, right? That was Jesus' intention in his teachings, from chapter 18?

 

@Srecko Sostar can you restate this comment, I'm having trouble understanding it after re-reading it a few times, sorry.